Fear Unions

LRod wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:28:55 -0800 (PST), Ron
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>All of which raises the question: Given the post-Reagan assault on the
>>earning power and dignity of blue-collar jobs, why aren't more people
>>signing union cards? Why haven't the marginal and disenfranchised in
>>the workforce wised up?
>
> As a member of the Class of '81 (Reagan's first victim)

Are you referring to the Air Traffic Controllers? The ones that were
forbidden by federal law from going on strike? But did anyway? But somehow
it was Reagan who was the bad guy when he didn't cave to an illegal act but
fired those who were illegally striking?

> I couldn't
> agree more, but the one big problem is that only one side of the
> equation wants to play fair any more. Collective bargaining? No, it's,
> "don't like it here, we'll hire someone else." There is no loyalty
> left in corporate America any longer.
>

Don't disagree with that sentiment either. However, the labor union
stance that pretty much says everybody gets paid the same based only upon
how long they have been around doesn't do much to help efficiency or the
ability to compete in a world market. It also doesn't encourage anybody to
work hard or excel either. Why should a union member ever try to do any
more than any of their co-workers? There is no opportunity for advancement
through that route.

>>Union membership used to hover at close to
>>35%; today it's barely 12%. Worse, if only private industry were
>>counted, it's less than 7%. Better money, richer benefits, safer
>>environment, more control . . . what's not to like?
>

Getting a union grievance for picking up a scope probe to measure a
voltage on a down piece of equipment, for picking up a box of documents
that one has finished sorting through in order to make room for the next
box. Having to wait 1/2 a day for transportation to get around to moving a
computer from one cubicle to another in order to avoid having a grievance
filed. The only raise one gets is for having been at the same place for
another year, knowing that you are more capable than the guy working next
to you, but he makes the same because you are both working under the same
collective bargaining agreement. What's to like?


> The union haters will be dumping all over this thread in a heartbeat.
> I've never understood how a working person wouldn't be in favor of a
> union, just as I've never understood how a black person or gay person
> could be a rethuglican. Doesn't make sense. It's like a chicken
> belonging to the fox club.
>

Yep, voting for the Dems for over 40 years as a solid block has really
done the black community a world of good hasn't it? What is the rate of
unwed mothers in the dependency-class enclaves created by Democrat
policies? How have their lives been improved? Yep, it's done them a
world of good.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

RE: Subject

Like most things, labor unions behave like a pedulum.

During the 30's when labor unions were being formed, they had almost
no power, and neither did their members.

As far as the employers were concerned, it was their way or the
highway during those years.

The pendulum was definitely on the employer's side of the table.

After WWII, unions began to gain power until by the mid/late 70's,
unions had gained so much power that they had become a detriment to
the overall economy.
IOW, the pendulum had swung the other way to their side of the table.

Organized labor forgot who brought them to the dance.

Factory automation a change in the work force requirements as well as
the overall economy that labor unions failed to adjust to, has caused
a demise in their ranks.

The work place today reflects the weakness of the organized labor
movement.

The American labor movement is far from perfect, but it has/does make
a positive contribution.

The employers hire lobbists to represent them.

The lowly employee joins a umion who then hires a lobbist to represent
them.

Guess it depends on whose ox is being gored.

Disclaimer:

I have never belonged to a labor union, but do recognise they provide
a necessary function in our complex society.

Off the box.

Lew

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

>
> "Ron" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Given the post-Reagan assault on the
>> earning power and dignity of blue-collar jobs, why aren't more people
>> signing union cards? Why haven't the marginal and disenfranchised in
>> the workforce wised up? Union membership used to hover at close to
>> 35%; today it's barely 12%. Worse, if only private industry were
>> counted, it's less than 7%. Better money, richer benefits, safer
>> environment, more control . . . what's not to like?
>>
>> Millwright Ron
>> www.unionmillwright.com
>
> What's not to like? I can do my own negotiating; I don't need a union
> officer making $150,000 a year get me a 5¢ raise and take my hard earned
> money for dues.
>
... snip
> us. Never have and never will join a union.

After retiring from the store Dad owned, Mom and Dad started driving buses
for the airport. They did this for several years until the drivers voted
to unionize. They both quit after that. Dad's comment, "I've gone 75
years without needing a union, I don't need one now."


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

RayV wrote:

> On Dec 13, 7:47 pm, Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
>> RayV wrote:
>>
>> > The ultra-liberal union leadership that tries to force their views of
>> > 'what should be' on the membership. Yeah, yeah the democrats are the
>> > party of the working man and the republicans are the party of Warren
>> > Buffet.
>>
>> Er, didn't you watch the news the last few days? Warren Buffet is
>> supporting Hillary for Pres. He is and always has been a Democrat.
>
> He just does that to make things look good. He knew about 9-11...
> http://killtown.911review.org/buffett.html


Oh gads, not a troofer. I sure hope you don't use powered woodworking
machinery, you are likely to hurt yourself.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Leon wrote:
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:6a0093f6-4638-4b73-9d14-f20fbc6d5814@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Yes. Marvelous. WTF does ANY of this have to do with hobby
>> woodworking?
>
> It's a long shot but perhaps expensive union labor may be part of the
> reason that wood working tools are mostly made in foreign countries
> now.

Probably not.....Pretty hard to compete against $1.00 (or less) an hour
labor with or without union wages. Rod

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> I'm just curious what you think labor is "worth". True Capitalists
> believe labor is another good like any other and is worth what
> the market will bear. Marxists think labor is somehow sacred
> and should be funded at some artificial "fair" rate independent
> of economic reality. The former view has created incredible
> success for people at almost every level of the economic ladder.
> The latter view was instrumental in the stunning "success" of
> the Societ Bloc.

Apparently you see a rather black and white world...of which neither
actually exists. The Soviet Union did not think labor was somehow sacred but
rather that the state owned anything and/or everything...the absence of
individual ownership was the weak link. The oppressive state played no small
role either. From the wealth stand point I'd suspect the former Soviet Union
was considerably wealthier per capita than the current Russia. But income
was never equally distributed and in fact the party elite did quite well.

Pure Capitalism(if such has ever existed in a modern state) has far more
warts than benefits (The great depression is but one small example). The
public is not served well as serfs and overall economic output does not soar
when those at the top control all of the wealth and the resulting
benefits......A large and prosperous middle class has been the root of our
countries overall success in the past century.....at no time in the worlds
history has so many done so well by any objective criteria..... The market
place indeed is most efficient at determining wages and/or prices and the
strengths need to be judicially used for any effective system but unchecked
or uncontrolled it does not work for the great unwashed masses. A mixed
economy(what we have more or less) has the greatest chance at producing more
for the many. Rod

"Dave In Houston" wrote:

> ME likewise. But I'm overrun with a similar shitload. It's a first
> cousin to your shitload. And my shitload has a life of it's own; it grows
> and breeds other shitloads.
> "One day I'll use that for something," Dave said as he contemplated the
> piece of scrap, "and it'll save me a trip to the lumber store." Then he
> tossed it onto the shitload bin which long ago had overflowed its box and
> was slowly spreading across the floor in the rear of the shop.

Worked for a company that had a company policy as follows:

Every year in December, you had to go thru your files and throw anything
away more than 2 years old.

It was a policy developed by the lawyers.

"If you don't have it, they can't use it against you was the logic.

Great dicipline.

Lew

RayV wrote:

> On Dec 14, 9:00 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>> RayV wrote:
>>
>> > He just does that to make things look good. He knew about 9-11...
>> >http://killtown.911review.org/buffett.html
>>
>> Oh gads, not a troofer. I sure hope you don't use powered woodworking
>> machinery, you are likely to hurt yourself.
>>
>
> I only run the power tools at night so the EMFs don't combine with the
> rays they are beaming into my head from the HAARP.
> http://www.freedomfiles.org/technology/haarp.htm
>
> The tinfoil hats only amplify the governments power...

Ah, good to hear that, I was worried about you. ;-)

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Lew Hodgett wrote:

>
> "Dave In Houston" wrote:
>
>> ME likewise. But I'm overrun with a similar shitload. It's a first
>> cousin to your shitload. And my shitload has a life of it's own; it
>> grows and breeds other shitloads.
>> "One day I'll use that for something," Dave said as he contemplated
>> the
>> piece of scrap, "and it'll save me a trip to the lumber store." Then he
>> tossed it onto the shitload bin which long ago had overflowed its box and
>> was slowly spreading across the floor in the rear of the shop.
>
> Worked for a company that had a company policy as follows:
>
> Every year in December, you had to go thru your files and throw anything
> away more than 2 years old.
>
> It was a policy developed by the lawyers.
>
> "If you don't have it, they can't use it against you was the logic.
>
> Great dicipline.
>

Yeah, great until you get a phone call asking for why 0.125 steel was
chosen for such and such a part and whether it would be possible, based
upon previous trade studies whether substituting 0.130 aluminum would work
in order to meet weight specifications. But, you, as the designer were
forced to throw out those files 6 months ago. End result -- the trade
studies get to be redone.

> Lew

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Mark & Juanita" wrote:

> Yeah, great until you get a phone call asking for why 0.125 steel was
> chosen for such and such a part and whether it would be possible, based
> upon previous trade studies whether substituting 0.130 aluminum would work
> in order to meet weight specifications. But, you, as the designer were
> forced to throw out those files 6 months ago. End result -- the trade
> studies get to be redone.

Engineering studies are cheaper than lawsuits; however, engineering
documents were exempt.

Last time I check, engineers don't bill out at $500/hr + expenses<G>.

Only commercial documents were involved.

Lew

John E. wrote:

> And as we all know, greedy CEO's have never, ever put a company out of
> business after stripping off its assets.
>
> It's only the unionised workers who drive companies out of business.
>

Don't recall anyone having said any such thing. CEO's however, typically
have a vested interest in seeing a business do well in the long run. In
addition, that falls under the "fiduciary duties" part of their job
descriptions. Should they quote, unquote strip a business of its assets
for their own aggrandizement, they can, and have been prosecuted for
violating their fiduciary duties. On the other hand, if you are a union
leader, not so much.

Now, if you are trying to say that CEO's screwing up is equivalent to your
accusation, that is a different discussion. Sometimes things happen, CEO's
are not omniscient.

> John E.
>
> "Twayne" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:kdT8j.330$JW4.165@trnddc05...
>> Ron wrote:
>> > As the late Senator Paul Wellstone liked to say, "We
>> > may
>> > be entitled to our own opinions, but we're not
>> > entitled
>> > to our own facts." Even with organized labor's many
>> > problems (shrinking membership, internal dissension,
>> > gutless Democrats, growing irrelevancy, etc.),
>> > there's no
>> > disputing the facts.
>> > Fact: Across the board, union jobs pay more (10-15%
>> > more), offer better health and medical benefits, and
>> > provide workers greater on-the- job security and
>> > influence than non-union jobs. Fact: Union facilities
>> > are
>> > demonstrably safer than non-union facilities;
>> > statistically, the numbers aren't even close. Fact:
>> > If
>> > unions didn't represent a threat to management's
>> > greed
>> > and unchecked authority, they wouldn't be so
>> > vehemently
>> > opposed by businesses and business lobbies.
>> > All of which raises the question: Given the
>> > post-Reagan
>> > assault on the earning power and dignity of
>> > blue-collar
>> > jobs, why aren't more people signing union cards? Why
>> > haven't the marginal and disenfranchised in the
>> > workforce
>> > wised up? Union membership used to hover at close to
>> > 35%;
>> > today it's barely 12%. Worse, if only private
>> > industry
>> > were counted, it's less than 7%. Better money, richer
>> > benefits, safer environment, more control . . .
>> > what's
>> > not to like?
>> >
>> > Millwright Ron
>> > www.unionmillwright.com
>>
>> But you're only looking at one side of the picture.
>> BTDT in a union that put the company out of business
>> and into bankruptcy. Oh, the workers were real happy
>> until ... IBEW BTW.
>>
>>

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Lew Hodgett wrote:

>
> "Mark & Juanita" wrote:
>
>> Yeah, great until you get a phone call asking for why 0.125 steel was
>> chosen for such and such a part and whether it would be possible, based
>> upon previous trade studies whether substituting 0.130 aluminum would
>> work
>> in order to meet weight specifications. But, you, as the designer were
>> forced to throw out those files 6 months ago. End result -- the trade
>> studies get to be redone.
>
> Engineering studies are cheaper than lawsuits; however, engineering
> documents were exempt.
>
> Last time I check, engineers don't bill out at $500/hr + expenses<G>.
>
> Only commercial documents were involved.
>

Ah, that's a bit different then.

> Lew

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Union wages have always paid the bills at our house.
Now, Union retirement.

I'm damn proud to be the wife of a Union man - Operating Engineers Local 3

Kate

"Ron" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:ac600f3b-4414-47db-bc37-5e337ed472ec@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
As the late Senator Paul Wellstone liked to say, "We may be entitled
to our own opinions, but we're not entitled to our own facts." Even
with organized labor's many problems (shrinking membership, internal
dissension, gutless Democrats, growing irrelevancy, etc.), there's no
disputing the facts.
Fact: Across the board, union jobs pay more (10-15% more), offer
better health and medical benefits, and provide workers greater on-the-
job security and influence than non-union jobs. Fact: Union facilities
are demonstrably safer than non-union facilities; statistically, the
numbers aren't even close. Fact: If unions didn't represent a threat
to management's greed and unchecked authority, they wouldn't be so
vehemently opposed by businesses and business lobbies.
All of which raises the question: Given the post-Reagan assault on the
earning power and dignity of blue-collar jobs, why aren't more people
signing union cards? Why haven't the marginal and disenfranchised in
the workforce wised up? Union membership used to hover at close to
35%; today it's barely 12%. Worse, if only private industry were
counted, it's less than 7%. Better money, richer benefits, safer
environment, more control . . . what's not to like?

Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com

On Dec 14, 9:21 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> RayV wrote:
> > On Dec 14, 9:00 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> RayV wrote:
>
> >>> He just does that to make things look good. He knew about 9-11...
> >>>http://killtown.911review.org/buffett.html
> >> Oh gads, not a troofer. I sure hope you don't use powered woodworking
> >> machinery, you are likely to hurt yourself.
>
> > I only run the power tools at night so the EMFs don't combine with the
> > rays they are beaming into my head from the HAARP.
> >http://www.freedomfiles.org/technology/haarp.htm
>
> > The tinfoil hats only amplify the governments power...
>
> Not if you aim them at Rosie O'Donnell - she absorbs all energy.
>

Is THAT what makes her so ugly?

On 2007-12-13 12:28:55 -0800, Ron <[email protected]> said:

> As the late Senator Paul Wellstone liked to say, "We may be entitled
> to our own opinions, but we're not entitled to our own facts." Even
> with organized labor's many problems (shrinking membership, internal
> dissension, gutless Democrats, growing irrelevancy, etc.), there's no
> disputing the facts.
> Fact: Across the board, union jobs pay more (10-15% more), offer
> better health and medical benefits, and provide workers greater on-the-
> job security and influence than non-union jobs. Fact: Union facilities
> are demonstrably safer than non-union facilities; statistically, the
> numbers aren't even close. Fact: If unions didn't represent a threat
> to management's greed and unchecked authority, they wouldn't be so
> vehemently opposed by businesses and business lobbies.
> All of which raises the question: Given the post-Reagan assault on the
> earning power and dignity of blue-collar jobs, why aren't more people
> signing union cards? Why haven't the marginal and disenfranchised in
> the workforce wised up? Union membership used to hover at close to
> 35%; today it's barely 12%. Worse, if only private industry were
> counted, it's less than 7%. Better money, richer benefits, safer
> environment, more control . . . what's not to like?
>
> Millwright Ron
> www.unionmillwright.com

Amen brother....

On Dec 15, 12:48 pm, "Dave In Houston" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > And to cheer up Charlie Self, I'll draw a woodworking analogy. Do you
> > cut corners on the interior of your cabinet because nobody will see
> > it, or do you do the best work you feel you can do whether anyone sees
> > it or not?
>
> I resemble that remark!
> Is it OK to use a lesser expensive piece of material since nobody is
> going to see it?

Good work isn't wasteful. The best work you can do requires you to be
thrifty. That's why God invented poplar for furniture frames and the
guts of projects. And that's why I have one US regulation shitload of
offcuts awaiting their turn in the limelight...on the interior of
something or other.

R

LRod wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:28:55 -0800 (PST), Ron
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> All of which raises the question: Given the post-Reagan assault on the
>> earning power and dignity of blue-collar jobs, why aren't more people
>> signing union cards? Why haven't the marginal and disenfranchised in
>> the workforce wised up?
>
> As a member of the Class of '81 (Reagan's first victim) I couldn't
> agree more, but the one big problem is that only one side of the
> equation wants to play fair any more. Collective bargaining? No, it's,
> "don't like it here, we'll hire someone else." There is no loyalty
> left in corporate America any longer.

Same here in the UK, Thatcher set about smashing the union's, using the
police (and secret services) as her shock troops. Now the police, who by
law may not strike, are upset that they're pay rise will be like
everyone elses, paid in stages, after years of huge rises and overtime
that started with Thatchers union bashing, THEY want the right to
strike! The UK Police Federation (their body which is NOT a Union) is
funded by their employer, the gov't, so how long before the rug gets
pulled from under them too...

I was in the power industry when Thatcher (Reagan's soulmate accross the
pond) came to power, one of the first things she did was start the
process to sell off the power industry, cue staffing freeze, loss by
natural wastage, early retirements and trainee's (like me, apprentices)
not taken on at the end of training, finally by redundancy.

I've been a union member ever since, most of the time it just costs with
little benefit as our anti-union laws and union busting advice, often
from the US, has reduced their positive effects, but every once in a
while it pays off. I'm now a union workplace rep. specialising in Health
and Safety, most of the time is spent reminding my employer of their
LEGAL duties, and fighting the chinese attitude to other peoples safety!

On Dec 14, 9:09 am, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 9:12 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I don't hate the union because if forces the prices of products to not be
> > compeditive, or because $2500 on every GM vehicle goes toward an employee
> > and his family that no longer work for GM, or because when they strike it
> > disrupts the economy.
> > I was one that was able to keep a job on my own merrits with out a union to
> > stand behind.
>
> Bring back the guilds!
> Meritocracy
> Trade secrets that are really secret
> Indentured apprentices - well, at least apprentices that you can smack
> around (you know it's for their own good)
> A much better word than 'union'.
>
> R

Yes. Marvelous. WTF does ANY of this have to do with hobby woodworking?

On Dec 13, 7:47 pm, Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
> RayV wrote:
>
> > The ultra-liberal union leadership that tries to force their views of
> > 'what should be' on the membership. Yeah, yeah the democrats are the
> > party of the working man and the republicans are the party of Warren
> > Buffet.
>
> Er, didn't you watch the news the last few days? Warren Buffet is
> supporting Hillary for Pres. He is and always has been a Democrat.

He just does that to make things look good. He knew about 9-11...
http://killtown.911review.org/buffett.html

On Dec 13, 6:47=EF=BF=BDpm, Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
> RayV wrote:
>
> > The ultra-liberal union leadership that tries to force their views of
> > 'what should be' on the membership. =EF=BF=BDYeah, yeah the democrats ar=
e the
> > party of the working man and the republicans are the party of Warren
> > Buffet. =EF=BF=BD
>
> Er, didn't you watch the news the last few days? =EF=BF=BDWarren Buffet is=

> supporting Hillary for Pres. =EF=BF=BDHe is and always has been a Democrat=
.

What he said in the whole paragraph was:
"The ultra-liberal union leadership that tries to force their views
of
'what should be' on the membership. Yeah, yeah the democrats are the
party of the working man and the republicans are the party of Warren
Buffet. If the republicans are so rich why do the democrats always
say that they're stupid and live in trailer parks watching Nascar?"

I believe it was sarcasm. If you re-read it, it is obvious that he
knows that Buffett is a Democrat, and was making the point that, just
like the Republicans are not the party of Warren Buffett (thus the
comment about them being stereotyped as NASCAR-watching trailer park
dwellers), the Democrats are not the party of the working man. In
other words, the Democrats, who claim to be the party of the working
man, are actually the party of the likes of Warren Buffett to a
greater degree than the Republicans.

That being said, the problem I have with unions (I am a union
member)is that the unions support candidates for office using union
funds. You can stipulate that your dues are not to be used for
political campaigns, but once the money leaves your hands, what
actually happens to it is anyone's guess. Just as some union members
can't understand why a union member would be Republican, other union
memebrs wonder how a union member can be a Democrat.

Because a person's union membership is not the only important aspect
of his life, and often not the most important apsect of his life, he
may have other issues which would make him wish to avoid supporting a
candidate. Personal opinions regarding a candidate's stance on
abortion, for example, might preclude one from supporting a
candidate. While one may say this is a single issue, other's may say
a candidate's stance on unions is their single issue.

A union's endorsement of a candidate seems to imply tacit approval of
its members, which is the purpose. That in and of itself causes
dissension. The fact that the union spent money that was not
specifically donated for the purpose of supporting a candidate makes
the issue worse. You have to opt-out, not opt-in to have your money
spent to endorse a candidate, and with the aggressive attitudes of
some union members, opting out can be further cause for dissent.

It can be said that the union supports the candidates that work in the
best interest of the unions, but there is typically far from a
unanimous opinion on who that candidate is. The simple act of
endorsing a candidate, usually without a vote of the membership,
causes the kind of dissent which ruins a union. This seems, to me, to
be among the main downfalls of unions. Frankly, some candidates know
that no matter what they do, they will receive the endorsement of
unions. In many cases they don't act in the union's best interest,
and often don't keep their promises to the unions. Sometimes,
unfortunately, they keep only the back room promises they made with
union leaders.

You can disagree with whether people should be upset by a union's
politcal endorsements, but the fact is they are, and have been for a
long time. Unt6il unions either stop endorsing candidates, or at
least change the way they do it, they are going to continue to
aggravate a significant portion of their membership.

On Dec 14, 9:00 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> RayV wrote:
>
> > He just does that to make things look good. He knew about 9-11...
> >http://killtown.911review.org/buffett.html
>
> Oh gads, not a troofer. I sure hope you don't use powered woodworking
> machinery, you are likely to hurt yourself.
>

I only run the power tools at night so the EMFs don't combine with the
rays they are beaming into my head from the HAARP.
http://www.freedomfiles.org/technology/haarp.htm

The tinfoil hats only amplify the governments power...

On Dec 14, 10:31 pm, LRod <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:20:30 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
>
> >Either everyone must keep their word or no one has to...

Ummm, not really. Your word has nothing to do with the other person's
integrity. If you don't trust/respect/value them, don't give them
your word in the first place.

> I never cease to be amused when someone says something like this,
> particularly when reagan is somehow involved. How many wives did he
> have? Wasn't he president of SAG? Didn't he promise to work for
> controllers' issues when elected? Then let's start on his presidency.
> Weren't we supposed to stay out of Nicaragua? It goes on and on.

It appears that you are saying that if someone doesn't keep their word
you don't have to keep yours. Is that right? On the face of it, that
seems like common sense, but it's a little different when you start
dragging in someone's personal choices - things like marriage/divorce
and where they used to work - and other things that had nothing
whatsoever to do with your particular grievance.

A bargain is a bargain, but your word is your word. There will always
be other bargains, you have only one word. It's not about the other
guy and their faults - it's about you and your integrity in the face
of someone else's lack of it, no?

And to cheer up Charlie Self, I'll draw a woodworking analogy. Do you
cut corners on the interior of your cabinet because nobody will see
it, or do you do the best work you feel you can do whether anyone sees
it or not?

R

LRod wrote:
<SNIP>

> Working traffic for 40 hours per week was not back breaking, but it
> certainly took a toll on the vast majority of controllers. This is not
> a profession you can work at until you're 60. I retired when I was 51
> (after 30 years) and I'd just about had enough. There were no new
> people in the pipeline, no relief in sight for the continued increase
> in traffic, and the airlines had sandbagged the FAA into the so called
> "free flight" protocol, which was in direct conflict with the sector
> balancing our traffic management programs had tried so hard to
> implement when I was a flow controller in the late '80s.


So, in summary, you objected to working 40 hours per week - something
almost all working people do (and more) - your job was "stressful" -
like a good many of the rest of us - you went back on your word
by striking in the face of the contractual obligation not to - and
it was Reagan's fault? I don't think so. BTW, a good many of
us worked in 7x24x365 environments, for well below what ATC folk were
making and didn't see this as some kind of oppressive system.

Are ATC folk in a position of great responsibility? Sure. So are
nurses, doctors, teachers, engineers, lawyers, executives, and
the local plumbers (try seeing how long you can survive w/o a
flushing toilet). The simple fact is that you folks made a promise,
broke it, and tried to blame the government that had given you
a monopoly in exchange for that promise because you didn't believe
the President would all your BS - you were wrong.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Ron" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:ac600f3b-4414-47db-bc37-5e337ed472ec@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> As the late Senator Paul Wellstone liked to say, "We may be entitled
> to our own opinions, but we're not entitled to our own facts." Even
> with organized labor's many problems (shrinking membership, internal
> dissension, gutless Democrats, growing irrelevancy, etc.), there's no
> disputing the facts.
> Fact: Across the board, union jobs pay more (10-15% more), offer
> better health and medical benefits, and provide workers greater on-the-
> job security and influence than non-union jobs. Fact: Union facilities
> are demonstrably safer than non-union facilities; statistically, the
> numbers aren't even close. Fact: If unions didn't represent a threat
> to management's greed and unchecked authority, they wouldn't be so
> vehemently opposed by businesses and business lobbies.
> All of which raises the question: Given the post-Reagan assault on the
> earning power and dignity of blue-collar jobs, why aren't more people
> signing union cards? Why haven't the marginal and disenfranchised in
> the workforce wised up? Union membership used to hover at close to
> 35%; today it's barely 12%. Worse, if only private industry were
> counted, it's less than 7%. Better money, richer benefits, safer
> environment, more control . . . what's not to like?
>
> Millwright Ron
> www.unionmillwright.com

The union is an unnecessary institution who's time has come and gone as
witnessed by it demise. The Democrats have stepped in to fill the shoes.

"Ron" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Given the post-Reagan assault on the
> earning power and dignity of blue-collar jobs, why aren't more people
> signing union cards? Why haven't the marginal and disenfranchised in
> the workforce wised up? Union membership used to hover at close to
> 35%; today it's barely 12%. Worse, if only private industry were
> counted, it's less than 7%. Better money, richer benefits, safer
> environment, more control . . . what's not to like?
>
> Millwright Ron
> www.unionmillwright.com

What's not to like? I can do my own negotiating; I don't need a union
officer making $150,000 a year get me a 5¢ raise and take my hard earned
money for dues.

I do thank the unions for what they did back in the 1930, 40, maybe into the
50's, but they became as greedy as anyone. I've been at the negotiating
table and watched the union leader settle for a pittance for the worker, but
a big increase for the "health and welfare benefits" for the union.

Check to see what the union bosses are making from your dues and get back to
us. Never have and never will join a union.

"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:K%[email protected]...

> What's not to like? I can do my own negotiating; I don't need a union
> officer making $150,000 a year get me a 5¢ raise and take my hard earned
> money for dues.
>
> I do thank the unions for what they did back in the 1930, 40, maybe into
> the 50's, but they became as greedy as anyone. I've been at the
> negotiating table and watched the union leader settle for a pittance for
> the worker, but a big increase for the "health and welfare benefits" for
> the union.
>
> Check to see what the union bosses are making from your dues and get back
> to us. Never have and never will join a union.
>

Typically union leaders want to run "help" the company and not share the
investment or responsibility. They virtually have nothing to loose and yet
they are loosing.

And as we all know, greedy CEO's have never, ever put a company out of
business after stripping off its assets.

It's only the unionised workers who drive companies out of business.

John E.

"Twayne" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:kdT8j.330$JW4.165@trnddc05...
> Ron wrote:
> > As the late Senator Paul Wellstone liked to say, "We
> > may
> > be entitled to our own opinions, but we're not
> > entitled
> > to our own facts." Even with organized labor's many
> > problems (shrinking membership, internal dissension,
> > gutless Democrats, growing irrelevancy, etc.),
> > there's no
> > disputing the facts.
> > Fact: Across the board, union jobs pay more (10-15%
> > more), offer better health and medical benefits, and
> > provide workers greater on-the- job security and
> > influence than non-union jobs. Fact: Union facilities
> > are
> > demonstrably safer than non-union facilities;
> > statistically, the numbers aren't even close. Fact:
> > If
> > unions didn't represent a threat to management's
> > greed
> > and unchecked authority, they wouldn't be so
> > vehemently
> > opposed by businesses and business lobbies.
> > All of which raises the question: Given the
> > post-Reagan
> > assault on the earning power and dignity of
> > blue-collar
> > jobs, why aren't more people signing union cards? Why
> > haven't the marginal and disenfranchised in the
> > workforce
> > wised up? Union membership used to hover at close to
> > 35%;
> > today it's barely 12%. Worse, if only private
> > industry
> > were counted, it's less than 7%. Better money, richer
> > benefits, safer environment, more control . . .
> > what's
> > not to like?
> >
> > Millwright Ron
> > www.unionmillwright.com
>
> But you're only looking at one side of the picture.
> BTDT in a union that put the company out of business
> and into bankruptcy. Oh, the workers were real happy
> until ... IBEW BTW.
>
>

"RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:2214e5c8-fabf-440a-b6aa-829926cb9d78@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

> Good work isn't wasteful. The best work you can do requires you to be
> thrifty. That's why God invented poplar for furniture frames and the
> guts of projects. And that's why I have one US regulation shitload of
> offcuts awaiting their turn in the limelight...on the interior of
> something or other.

ME likewise. But I'm overrun with a similar shitload. It's a first
cousin to your shitload. And my shitload has a life of it's own; it grows
and breeds other shitloads.
"One day I'll use that for something," Dave said as he contemplated the
piece of scrap, "and it'll save me a trip to the lumber store." Then he
tossed it onto the shitload bin which long ago had overflowed its box and
was slowly spreading across the floor in the rear of the shop.

--
NuWave Dave in Houston

"Twayne" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> But you're only looking at one side of the picture. BTDT in a union that
> put the company out of business and into bankruptcy. Oh, the workers were
> real happy until ... IBEW BTW.

Friend of mine owned a metal supply business. Fifteen employees, three of
which were truck drivers with Teamsters. Other employees were well paid and
generally satisfied, but the Teamsters organized them. After a lengthy
strike, they settled (for very little more that what they already had) and
of the 12 on strike, only five were called back. A few weeks later the
Union asked then he was calling back the rest of the workers. He never did
as the outage destroyed much of his customer base. A year later he closed
the doors.

celticsoc <[email protected]> wrote in news:7d571230-4494-4deb-9a9f-
[email protected]:

> On Dec 13, 6:47�pm, Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
>> RayV wrote:
>>
>> > The ultra-liberal union leadership that tries to force their views
of
>> > 'what should be' on the membership. �Yeah, yeah the democrats ar
> e the
>> > party of the working man and the republicans are the party of Warren
>> > Buffet. �
>>
>> Er, didn't you watch the news the last few days? �Warren Buffet is
>
>> supporting Hillary for Pres. �He is and always has been a Democrat
> .
>
> What he said in the whole paragraph was:
> "The ultra-liberal union leadership that tries to force their views
> of
> 'what should be' on the membership. Yeah, yeah the democrats are the
> party of the working man and the republicans are the party of Warren
> Buffet. If the republicans are so rich why do the democrats always
> say that they're stupid and live in trailer parks watching Nascar?"
>
> I believe it was sarcasm. If you re-read it, it is obvious that he
> knows that Buffett is a Democrat, and was making the point that, just
> like the Republicans are not the party of Warren Buffett (thus the
> comment about them being stereotyped as NASCAR-watching trailer park
> dwellers), the Democrats are not the party of the working man. In
> other words, the Democrats, who claim to be the party of the working
> man, are actually the party of the likes of Warren Buffett to a
> greater degree than the Republicans.
>
> That being said, the problem I have with unions (I am a union
> member)is that the unions support candidates for office using union
> funds. You can stipulate that your dues are not to be used for
> political campaigns, but once the money leaves your hands, what
> actually happens to it is anyone's guess. Just as some union members
> can't understand why a union member would be Republican, other union
> memebrs wonder how a union member can be a Democrat.
>
> Because a person's union membership is not the only important aspect
> of his life, and often not the most important apsect of his life, he
> may have other issues which would make him wish to avoid supporting a
> candidate. Personal opinions regarding a candidate's stance on
> abortion, for example, might preclude one from supporting a
> candidate. While one may say this is a single issue, other's may say
> a candidate's stance on unions is their single issue.
>
> A union's endorsement of a candidate seems to imply tacit approval of
> its members, which is the purpose. That in and of itself causes
> dissension. The fact that the union spent money that was not
> specifically donated for the purpose of supporting a candidate makes
> the issue worse. You have to opt-out, not opt-in to have your money
> spent to endorse a candidate, and with the aggressive attitudes of
> some union members, opting out can be further cause for dissent.
>
> It can be said that the union supports the candidates that work in the
> best interest of the unions, but there is typically far from a
> unanimous opinion on who that candidate is. The simple act of
> endorsing a candidate, usually without a vote of the membership,
> causes the kind of dissent which ruins a union. This seems, to me, to
> be among the main downfalls of unions. Frankly, some candidates know
> that no matter what they do, they will receive the endorsement of
> unions. In many cases they don't act in the union's best interest,
> and often don't keep their promises to the unions. Sometimes,
> unfortunately, they keep only the back room promises they made with
> union leaders.
>
> You can disagree with whether people should be upset by a union's
> politcal endorsements, but the fact is they are, and have been for a
> long time. Unt6il unions either stop endorsing candidates, or at
> least change the way they do it, they are going to continue to
> aggravate a significant portion of their membership.
>

Probably the most intelligent entry in this thread. Before I 'joined'
IBM, I worked for United Aircraft in Conn. I was a shop steward (IAM) the
last two years I worked there (worked there three years). I wasn't
appointed, but elected. I ran unopposed. Everything in your post is
pretty much as I remember it.
Didn't really need a union at that time, but thirty years later hmmmmm.

Hank

LRod <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> There were serious issues that directly related to our well being that
> were not being addressed. You probably think it was about money, don't
> you? If you'd been there, you'd know diifferent.
>

I was there. Leesburg, Nashua. It was about more controllers, fewer hours
and more money. Most controllers I spoke with, before they went out, wanted
more money and fewer hours. Controllers made a pretty decent living. I was
with IBM at the time and made a bit (quite) less. Most of them (the ATCs
that I dealt with or knew) thought they had the Country by the balls
because they could totally shut down all air traffic in the USA. Even
though they felt that way, they really didn't want to strike. The few that
mentioned or spoke to me about striking being illegal, didn't think it was
anything inportant because teachers, garbage collectors etc. had been
getting away with it for years. Again, this is my experience with the ATC's
I worked or dealt with on a daily basis. That strike was about money. Cloak
it in all the nice words you want.
Sat at the Holiday Inn bar in Nashua NH after President Reagan fired the
ATC's listening to them saying "he can't be serious", "a big bluff", etc.
I guess they pissed him off. I don't know which side was right. Some of the
people I know went back and others didn't have the option.
I KNOW ONE TRUTH. When you think you have become indispensible, you are in
the most danger of becoming dispensible.
Hank

"Dave In Houston" <[email protected]> wrote in news:u42dndL_a-
[email protected]:

>
> "RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:886a97c8-6baf-47f4-8306-7073dc85b064@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> And to cheer up Charlie Self, I'll draw a woodworking analogy. Do you
>> cut corners on the interior of your cabinet because nobody will see
>> it, or do you do the best work you feel you can do whether anyone sees
>> it or not?
>
> I resemble that remark!
> Is it OK to use a lesser expensive piece of material since nobody is
> going to see it?

Yes it is; as long as it is priced into the product accordingly.

"Kate" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Union wages have always paid the bills at our house.
> Now, Union retirement.
>
> I'm damn proud to be the wife of a Union man - Operating Engineers Local 3
>
> Kate
>


So your husband worked for the Union or was he actually paid by a company
that he worked for.

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:6a0093f6-4638-4b73-9d14-f20fbc6d5814@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>> Yes. Marvelous. WTF does ANY of this have to do with hobby
>>> woodworking?
>> It's a long shot but perhaps expensive union labor may be part of the
>> reason that wood working tools are mostly made in foreign countries
>> now.
>
> Probably not.....Pretty hard to compete against $1.00 (or less) an hour
> labor with or without union wages. Rod
>
>

I'm just curious what you think labor is "worth". True Capitalists
believe labor is another good like any other and is worth what
the market will bear. Marxists think labor is somehow sacred
and should be funded at some artificial "fair" rate independent
of economic reality. The former view has created incredible
success for people at almost every level of the economic ladder.
The latter view was instrumental in the stunning "success" of
the Societ Bloc.

P.S. By "True Capitalist" I do NOT mean business and market players
who are only too happy to avoid the law by taking shortcuts
like hiring illegal workers, cheating their employees, and
so on. These people are not "Capitalists", they are criminals.

P.P.S. No matter how anyone *feels* about things, there is a simple
economic calculus here. If you give an American worker
who is already making, say, $20/hr plus benefits a raise
of $1/hr, they grumble about "unfair" it is. If you take
someone overseas living in some 3rd-world sewer who is making
$1/week and offer him/her $1/hour, you just improved their
lot in life immensely and they will jump at this opportunity.
It make absolutely no difference how you feel about it - no
entity, including even government, has sufficient power to
control and manage economic reality.

(cf: "The Wealth Of Nations", Adam Smith, particularly
his reference to the "invisible hand" and what happens
when you try to hold it back. Then go read
"The Road To Serfdom" by Hayek for a near perfect
lab example of what happens when you meddle with economies
by force.)

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 05:36:01 -0000, Hank <[email protected]> wrote:

>LRod <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> There were serious issues that directly related to our well being that
>> were not being addressed. You probably think it was about money, don't
>> you? If you'd been there, you'd know diifferent.
>>
>
>I was there. Leesburg, Nashua. It was about more controllers, fewer hours
>and more money. Most controllers I spoke with, before they went out, wanted
>more money and fewer hours.

Well, you can't discount money as an issue no matter what the other
issues are, because most of them will boil down to more money.
However, I can tell you that the "$10K" that was so widely touted by
the FAA in their disinformation campaign as the chief negotiating
point was a "throw-away" that none of us who were politically aware
had a realistic expectation of getting. More important to us was a 32
hour workweek (as several European countries with far les traffic than
even our second tier facilities enjoyed).

And you can dismiss it thinking money was truly the point, but we were
pretty tired of getting short shrift on staffing, equipment, and
support in general. When I left in 1997 there were still racks of
equipment in the basement being used with a label stating "property of
CAA." The CAA was replaced by the FAA(gency) the predecessor of the
FAA(dministration) by the Federal Aviation Act of 1958. They used
tubes.

The FAA is the only organization I know of in which minimum staffing
and maximum staffing is the same number. The long standing truth in
the FAA (I speak solely for the Air Traffic Division) was that if you
needed an ad hoc day off on short notice (namely once the schedule was
posted), there was no point in asking for annual leave (vacation
time), it was virtually never approved because the schedule was made
to minimum staffing numbers. Even supervisors would tell you to take
sick leave.

When you have a business that operates 24/7/365 it's difficult enough
to try to make family events such as school plays, soccer games, or
recitals with regular shift assignments, but when a last minute
request for your presence for a teacher meeting, or when your
son/daughter gets promoted to the varsity mid season and is starting
tomorrow's game, your stuck. Other businesses have room to accomodate
such exigencies, but not when you're constantly at minimum staffing.

Working traffic for 40 hours per week was not back breaking, but it
certainly took a toll on the vast majority of controllers. This is not
a profession you can work at until you're 60. I retired when I was 51
(after 30 years) and I'd just about had enough. There were no new
people in the pipeline, no relief in sight for the continued increase
in traffic, and the airlines had sandbagged the FAA into the so called
"free flight" protocol, which was in direct conflict with the sector
balancing our traffic management programs had tried so hard to
implement when I was a flow controller in the late '80s.

Factor in Reduced Vertical Separation Minima, effectively doubling the
number of airplanes in a sector above FL290 (29,000 feet), along with
the reduced staffing and it's no wonder people are bailing left and
right. They'd be leaving even if there wasn't a statutory retirement
after 25 years (I was exempt because of my hire date--pre-1973--I
could have legally continued as long as I wanted).

>Controllers made a pretty decent living. I was
>with IBM at the time and made a bit (quite) less.

We did okay. But in 1981 we were making (in Chicago, and I was a
senior guy) about $45K. The $10k we were asking? By 1983, after I was
reinstated, I was making that much more. Must not have been a problem
to come up with, huh?

>Most of them (the ATCs that I dealt with or knew) thought they had the
>Country by the balls because they could totally shut down all air traffic i
>n the USA. Even though they felt that way, they really didn't want to strike.

Yes, we were a pretty cocky bunch. And don't think for a minute that
we didn't actually achieve that. The figures the FAA put out in the
months after August 3, were pure fiction. The airlines colluded in it
because they had their own ax to grind with the controllers. When I
came back to work in '83, I was shocked with who was in that buiilding
working airplanes. You do not want to know what dregs of "talent" they
used (much of it illegal) to hold the system together long enough to
get replacements in.

>The few that mentioned or spoke to me about striking being illegal, didn't
>think it was anything inportant because teachers, garbage collectors etc.
>had been getting away with it for years. Again, this is my experience with
>the ATC's I worked or dealt with on a daily basis.

Absolutely correct. The phrase we used was, "the only illegal strike
is the one that isn't successfull."

>That strike was about money. Cloak it in all the nice words you want.

Only in the context I laid out above. I was as militant as anyone, and
as I said, the $10K was a throwaway from the start. It was a lot more
than money, cloak it in all the money words you want. I really was
there.

>Sat at the Holiday Inn bar in Nashua NH after President Reagan fired the
>ATC's listening to them saying "he can't be serious", "a big bluff", etc.

It was groundbreaking, that's for sure. We couldn't believe he'd
turned his back on us.

>I guess they pissed him off. I don't know which side was right. Some of the
>people I know went back and others didn't have the option.

Although there were some true scabs who returned under the three day
(as I recall) warning period, after the dust had settled, there were
probably fewer than a couple hundred nationwide who ultimately won
their cases (we all appealed our firings). I was one of about 40 in
Chicago, and we had the largest number, I believe. I was one of them.

> I KNOW ONE TRUTH. When you think you have become indispensible, you are in
>the most danger of becoming dispensible.

It sure is easy to make that observation in hindsight and when you're
not in the middle of it. What's interesting is I am in touch with a
large number of fired controllers, and there are hardly any who don't
think they did the right thing. There are, however, very, very few (if
any) who would do it again, particularly if they had any idea how it
would turn out.

This is my last post on this subject. Unless there is another
controller here to talk about it, not one of you can possibly know the
true details of the experience and all that led to it and followed it.
For those who are bent on believing what they believe and which isn't
in concert with what I know and what I experienced, further rhetoric
will not illuminate. It's a pointless discussion.


--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.

On Dec 15, 7:31 pm, celticsoc <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip>

> That being said, the problem I have with unions (I am a union
> member)is that the unions support candidates for office using union
> funds. You can stipulate that your dues are not to be used for
> political campaigns, but once the money leaves your hands, what
> actually happens to it is anyone's guess.

You can look at what happens with some of the $$ here
Officers of unions
https://cslxwep1.dol-esa.gov/Disclosure/OnlineSR30.jsp?ReportId=LM30

The LM 2 forms have the general financial info and salaries paid to
officers
http://erds.dol-esa.gov/query/getOrgQry.do

Lots more to be found on the site if you dig a little...

On Dec 14, 9:01 pm, RayV <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 9:00 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > RayV wrote:
>
> > > He just does that to make things look good. He knew about 9-11...
> > >http://killtown.911review.org/buffett.html
>
> > Oh gads, not a troofer. I sure hope you don't use powered woodworking
> > machinery, you are likely to hurt yourself.
>
> I only run the power tools at night so the EMFs don't combine with the
> rays they are beaming into my head from the HAARP.http://www.freedomfiles.org/technology/haarp.htm
>
> The tinfoil hats only amplify the governments power...

Not if you turn the shiny side out.

Ron wrote:
<SNIP>

> All of which raises the question: Given the post-Reagan assault on the
> earning power and dignity of blue-collar jobs, why aren't more people
> signing union cards?

Because most of us have sufficient skill, work ethic, integrity,
and ambition to not settle for the lowest common denominator that is
a union arrangement, that's why. I've seen the "quality" the union
contractors put into my home when it was new - it was pitiful.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Dec 13, 12:28 pm, Ron <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip benefits of unions>
> why aren't more people
> signing union cards? Why haven't the marginal and disenfranchised in
> the workforce wised up? Union membership used to hover at close to
> 35%; today it's barely 12%. Worse, if only private industry were
> counted, it's less than 7%. Better money, richer benefits, safer
> environment, more control . . . what's not to like?
>

The ultra-liberal union leadership that tries to force their views of
'what should be' on the membership. Yeah, yeah the democrats are the
party of the working man and the republicans are the party of Warren
Buffet. If the republicans are so rich why do the democrats always
say that they're stupid and live in trailer parks watching Nascar?

The way the unions 'eat their young' by bargaining contracts that
provide lesser pay and or benefits to those yet to be hired. All for
a few pieces of silver...

The way union leaders feel that new members should be beholden to them
for all they have done for the newbies. Not that the unions haven't
done a lot of good, but the new members weren't around in the old days
and don't even know about Norma Ray or Jimmy Hoffa other than he is
buried under Giants stadium.

Because union leaders want to sit on their backsides instead of do
something like Andy Stern has done.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Stern

I'm a union member and only know the good the union has done for me
because when I complained about something the local president put me
on the bargaining team and had me run for the executive board. Most
union leaders get indignant and tell their own members to 'shut up'.
Not a way to run a railroad...

On Dec 13, 9:12 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I don't hate the union because if forces the prices of products to not be
> compeditive, or because $2500 on every GM vehicle goes toward an employee
> and his family that no longer work for GM, or because when they strike it
> disrupts the economy.
> I was one that was able to keep a job on my own merrits with out a union to
> stand behind.

Bring back the guilds!
Meritocracy
Trade secrets that are really secret
Indentured apprentices - well, at least apprentices that you can smack
around (you know it's for their own good)
A much better word than 'union'.

R

Bonehenge (B A R R Y) wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:58:16 +0000, LRod <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> Everything's negotiable. See USPS Strike 1970. Just as "illegal" but
>> amicably resolved by good faith negotiations.
>
> There have also been "illegal" strikes by teachers, transit workers,
> firefighters, etc...
>
> The 2005 NYC Transit Strike was probably the most recent example.
>
> The whole lot was not fired for striking.

But they should have been. All these people serve public
safety and/or the interests of our children. They are
granted a virtual monopoly to do so by government and
are paid with all of our tax money. Part of the deal
when they signed up was an agreement to never strike -
or at least that was the deal with the ATC folk - precisely
because their work is so integral to the safety of the nation.
They joined up voluntarily, and signed their contracts as
adults, making that promise to never strike without coercion
or other force. Then they go back and their word (i.e. lie)
and you *defend* this? I've heard screeching about far less
here on the 'wreck because someone felt ripped off over a
tool or a discount that wasn't honored at some store. Why
aren't public servants to be held to the same standard?
Either everyone must keep their word or no one has to...



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Dec 16, 10:34 am, "Kate" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Union wages have always paid the bills at our house.
> Now, Union retirement.
>
> I'm damn proud to be the wife of a Union man - Operating Engineers Local 3
>
> Kate

It's all fine and dandy that you're proud of him, but if he wasn't a
union man, would you be any less proud? Generally speaking it's the
man that should make you proud, not what he does or who he does it
for.

R

LRod wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:28:55 -0800 (PST), Ron
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> All of which raises the question: Given the post-Reagan assault on
>> the earning power and dignity of blue-collar jobs, why aren't more
>> people signing union cards? Why haven't the marginal and
>> disenfranchised in the workforce wised up?
>
> As a member of the Class of '81 (Reagan's first victim) I couldn't
> agree more, but the one big problem is that only one side of the
> equation wants to play fair any more. Collective bargaining? No,
> it's,
> "don't like it here, we'll hire someone else." There is no loyalty
> left in corporate America any longer.
>
>> Union membership used to hover at close to
>> 35%; today it's barely 12%. Worse, if only private industry were
>> counted, it's less than 7%. Better money, richer benefits, safer
>> environment, more control . . . what's not to like?
>
> The union haters will be dumping all over this thread in a
> heartbeat.
> I've never understood how a working person wouldn't be in favor of a
> union,

The first time a union negotiates you a pay cut you'll understand.

> just as I've never understood how a black person or gay person
> could be a rethuglican.

If you dumbo-craps would restrain yourselves from using such
derogatory terms you would be much more credible. See how easy it is
to make fun of a name and how unproductive it is?

> Doesn't make sense. It's like a chicken
> belonging to the fox club.
>
> I'm sure there'll be some old wreck acquaintances putting me on
> their
> shit list, now. I don't believe I've ever publicly discussed where I
> was in '81 before.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:20:30 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:

Oh, if only life were so simple. First of all, I have yet to find any
government employee with more than about two years on the job who even
remembers such a document. When you get hired (anywhere) you are
virtually overwhelmed with documents, orientations, procedures,
chain-of-command, etc., and that doesn't even count the actual OJT.

But that's not even the important part. Implicit in that "agreement"
was that you would be treated as a professional, you would benefit
from professional leadership, and that you would enjoy the respect and
loyalty of the institution in return for your own.

I have thousands of examples personally experienced by me and
multiplied by the tens of thousands of fellow controllers with whom I
worked over the years of violations of the most egregious sort by the
agency of those committments.

It's easy to sit back and prosletyze about what *should* be done when
you' haven't the benefit of the experience. I was there. I know what
happened, and I knew what needed to be done. Do you honestly think for
a second that over 13,000 people not only went out the door but
refused to return just on a whim?

There were serious issues that directly related to our well being that
were not being addressed. You probably think it was about money, don't
you? If you'd been there, you'd know diifferent.

>Either everyone must keep their word or no one has to...

I never cease to be amused when someone says something like this,
particularly when reagan is somehow involved. How many wives did he
have? Wasn't he president of SAG? Didn't he promise to work for
controllers' issues when elected? Then let's start on his presidency.
Weren't we supposed to stay out of Nicaragua? It goes on and on.

>Bonehenge (B A R R Y) wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:58:16 +0000, LRod <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> Everything's negotiable. See USPS Strike 1970. Just as "illegal" but
>>> amicably resolved by good faith negotiations.
>>
>> There have also been "illegal" strikes by teachers, transit workers,
>> firefighters, etc...
>>
>> The 2005 NYC Transit Strike was probably the most recent example.
>>
>> The whole lot was not fired for striking.
>
>But they should have been. All these people serve public
>safety and/or the interests of our children. They are
>granted a virtual monopoly to do so by government and
>are paid with all of our tax money. Part of the deal
>when they signed up was an agreement to never strike -
>or at least that was the deal with the ATC folk - precisely
>because their work is so integral to the safety of the nation.
>They joined up voluntarily, and signed their contracts as
>adults, making that promise to never strike without coercion
>or other force. Then they go back and their word (i.e. lie)
>and you *defend* this? I've heard screeching about far less
>here on the 'wreck because someone felt ripped off over a
>tool or a discount that wasn't honored at some store. Why
>aren't public servants to be held to the same standard?
>Either everyone must keep their word or no one has to...

--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 18:21:12 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:

>LRod wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:28:55 -0800 (PST), Ron
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>All of which raises the question: Given the post-Reagan assault on the
>>>earning power and dignity of blue-collar jobs, why aren't more people
>>>signing union cards? Why haven't the marginal and disenfranchised in
>>>the workforce wised up?
>>
>> As a member of the Class of '81 (Reagan's first victim)
>
> Are you referring to the Air Traffic Controllers? The ones that were
>forbidden by federal law from going on strike? But did anyway? But somehow
>it was Reagan who was the bad guy when he didn't cave to an illegal act but
>fired those who were illegally striking?

Just the response I expected.

Everything's negotiable. See USPS Strike 1970. Just as "illegal" but
amicably resolved by good faith negotiations. Reagan promised support
for the controllers in exchange for the union's endorsement. We did,
he didn't. Yeah, I blame him. He was the one instructing Drew Lewis
and company to "not give an inch."

But you weren't there, so you don't know.

--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.

Ron wrote:
> As the late Senator Paul Wellstone liked to say, "We
> may
> be entitled to our own opinions, but we're not
> entitled
> to our own facts." Even with organized labor's many
> problems (shrinking membership, internal dissension,
> gutless Democrats, growing irrelevancy, etc.),
> there's no
> disputing the facts.
> Fact: Across the board, union jobs pay more (10-15%
> more), offer better health and medical benefits, and
> provide workers greater on-the- job security and
> influence than non-union jobs. Fact: Union facilities
> are
> demonstrably safer than non-union facilities;
> statistically, the numbers aren't even close. Fact:
> If
> unions didn't represent a threat to management's
> greed
> and unchecked authority, they wouldn't be so
> vehemently
> opposed by businesses and business lobbies.
> All of which raises the question: Given the
> post-Reagan
> assault on the earning power and dignity of
> blue-collar
> jobs, why aren't more people signing union cards? Why
> haven't the marginal and disenfranchised in the
> workforce
> wised up? Union membership used to hover at close to
> 35%;
> today it's barely 12%. Worse, if only private
> industry
> were counted, it's less than 7%. Better money, richer
> benefits, safer environment, more control . . .
> what's
> not to like?
>
> Millwright Ron
> www.unionmillwright.com

But you're only looking at one side of the picture.
BTDT in a union that put the company out of business
and into bankruptcy. Oh, the workers were real happy
until ... IBEW BTW.

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:20:30 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:


>Either everyone must keep their word or no one has to...

I totally agree!

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:58:16 +0000, LRod <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>Everything's negotiable. See USPS Strike 1970. Just as "illegal" but
>amicably resolved by good faith negotiations.

There have also been "illegal" strikes by teachers, transit workers,
firefighters, etc...

The 2005 NYC Transit Strike was probably the most recent example.

The whole lot was not fired for striking.

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

"Kate" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Union wages have always paid the bills at our house.
> Now, Union retirement.
>
> I'm damn proud to be the wife of a Union man - Operating Engineers Local 3
>
> Kate
>


So your husband worked for the Union or was he actually paid by a company
that he worked for.
---
He was paid by the company he worked for.
If you're just trying to stir up a fuss, you're in the wrong kitchen.

As a union memeber he had/has better benefits and wages than non union
workers in the same field.

Kate

RayV wrote:
> On Dec 14, 9:00 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>> RayV wrote:
>>
>>> He just does that to make things look good. He knew about 9-11...
>>> http://killtown.911review.org/buffett.html
>> Oh gads, not a troofer. I sure hope you don't use powered woodworking
>> machinery, you are likely to hurt yourself.
>>
>
> I only run the power tools at night so the EMFs don't combine with the
> rays they are beaming into my head from the HAARP.
> http://www.freedomfiles.org/technology/haarp.htm
>
> The tinfoil hats only amplify the governments power...

Not if you aim them at Rosie O'Donnell - she absorbs all energy.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:6a0093f6-4638-4b73-9d14-f20fbc6d5814@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> Yes. Marvelous. WTF does ANY of this have to do with hobby
>>> woodworking?
>>
>> It's a long shot but perhaps expensive union labor may be part of the
>> reason that wood working tools are mostly made in foreign countries
>> now.
>
> Probably not.....Pretty hard to compete against $1.00 (or less) an hour
> labor with or without union wages. Rod
>

I bet the first to compete, Makita, Ryobi, etc were paying much more than
$1 per hour. Tiawan was much later.

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:28:55 -0800 (PST), Ron
<[email protected]> wrote:

>All of which raises the question: Given the post-Reagan assault on the
>earning power and dignity of blue-collar jobs, why aren't more people
>signing union cards? Why haven't the marginal and disenfranchised in
>the workforce wised up?

As a member of the Class of '81 (Reagan's first victim) I couldn't
agree more, but the one big problem is that only one side of the
equation wants to play fair any more. Collective bargaining? No, it's,
"don't like it here, we'll hire someone else." There is no loyalty
left in corporate America any longer.

>Union membership used to hover at close to
>35%; today it's barely 12%. Worse, if only private industry were
>counted, it's less than 7%. Better money, richer benefits, safer
>environment, more control . . . what's not to like?

The union haters will be dumping all over this thread in a heartbeat.
I've never understood how a working person wouldn't be in favor of a
union, just as I've never understood how a black person or gay person
could be a rethuglican. Doesn't make sense. It's like a chicken
belonging to the fox club.

I'm sure there'll be some old wreck acquaintances putting me on their
shit list, now. I don't believe I've ever publicly discussed where I
was in '81 before.


--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.

"LRod" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The union haters will be dumping all over this thread in a heartbeat.
> I've never understood how a working person wouldn't be in favor of a
> union, just as I've never understood how a black person or gay person
> could be a rethuglican. Doesn't make sense. It's like a chicken
> belonging to the fox club.

I don't hate the union because if forces the prices of products to not be
compeditive, or because $2500 on every GM vehicle goes toward an employee
and his family that no longer work for GM, or because when they strike it
disrupts the economy.
I was one that was able to keep a job on my own merrits with out a union to
stand behind.

RayV wrote:
>
> The ultra-liberal union leadership that tries to force their views of
> 'what should be' on the membership. Yeah, yeah the democrats are the
> party of the working man and the republicans are the party of Warren
> Buffet.

Er, didn't you watch the news the last few days? Warren Buffet is
supporting Hillary for Pres. He is and always has been a Democrat.

"RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:886a97c8-6baf-47f4-8306-7073dc85b064@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> And to cheer up Charlie Self, I'll draw a woodworking analogy. Do you
> cut corners on the interior of your cabinet because nobody will see
> it, or do you do the best work you feel you can do whether anyone sees
> it or not?

I resemble that remark!
Is it OK to use a lesser expensive piece of material since nobody is
going to see it?
--
Dave in Houston

"RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Dec 16, 10:34 am, "Kate" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Union wages have always paid the bills at our house.
> Now, Union retirement.
>
> I'm damn proud to be the wife of a Union man - Operating Engineers Local 3
>
> Kate

It's all fine and dandy that you're proud of him, but if he wasn't a
union man, would you be any less proud? Generally speaking it's the
man that should make you proud, not what he does or who he does it
for.

R

Oh for crying out loud, what's with trying to pick the fly specks out of the
pepper?
Of course I'm proud of him no matter what.

He's a good man. Better than most.

Kate

"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:6a0093f6-4638-4b73-9d14-f20fbc6d5814@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> Yes. Marvelous. WTF does ANY of this have to do with hobby woodworking?

It's a long shot but perhaps expensive union labor may be part of the reason
that wood working tools are mostly made in foreign countries now.